In this edition of “Defeating Neo-Conservatism“ I’ll be spotlighting the infamous, self-proclaimed ‘conservative alternative’, Dana Loesch.

I was a regular listener of ‘The Dana Show’ for nearly 2 years. I discovered Dana Loesch while watching an episode of the long running talk show “Real Time with Bill Maher” which airs on HBO. When I 1st saw Mrs. Loesch in action, she was
holding her own amongst the other panelists in a primarily bias, liberal environment. I was actually rather impressed. If you’re a regular viewer of Realtime, you’ll know that the show does swing more to an unbalanced ‘left wing perspective’ the majority of time. What I like about his show, as I’m sure most others may agree, is that he hosts weekly panel discussions about “Realtime” political & social issues. Sometimes his guests aren’t too knowledgable and make jokes far too often due to their ignorance on various topics. Other times the discussions and debates are great to watch when there are more knowledgable panelists in attendance. Dana claimed to have been an independent voice and member of the Tea-party movement. Naturally, her performance sparked my intrigue so much, I continued to follow her career further after the initial appearance on Realtime.

Shortly thereafter, I began to follow Loesch on twitter, and read a few of her original blog posts she’d written before she became a member of Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Journalism” crew. Hey, when an individual consistently expresses their love and admiration for the U.S. Constitution, along with the principles the document was designed to protect & preserve, that individual is typically good in my book; especially given the individual’s actions match what they preach. This was Dana Loesch and “The Dana Show.” It was a relief to finally hear someone produce a talk radio show that favored principle over ego, money, fame, and power.

Unfortunately, this seemingly patriotic common sense speaking side of Dana Loesch would be short-lived. Flashing forward to 2012, a different scope of Dana Loesch began to emerge. In early January 2012, a story broke about American soldiers urinating on the corpses of dead enemy combatants. Surely, anyone with half a brain knows that an act of this nature would cease to reduce tension in an already intense war zone. To make matters worse, this incident was all caught on video. Dana commented on the story stating…

After hearing such a vile statement, a statement beyond reproach, Dana received a multitude of back lash from all sorts of media outlets. Some were bias liberal leftwing outlets, so I paid them no attention. However, there were neutral figures & organizations that also called her out. I, for example, being a truly independent voice, called Dana out on her outlandish remarks. The fact that she refused to acknowledge her error in judgment by doubling down on what she’d say, albeit moderately, is what really began to question her level of character. In a couple of twitter messages, I simply responded in a respectful tone, stating something along the lines of…”I think you said something silly, were embarrassed about it but your pride won’t allow you to be humble enough admitting you were wrong.” I support our U.S. Military, but I neither do so blindly nor unconditionally. If I support or condone foolishness, it would appear as though I too, am foolish. What those 3 soldiers did was absolutely foolish and is not a reflection of the U.S. military as a whole. In regards to the incident itself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta, U.S. military commanders, & various experts on foreign policy have gone public and condemned what the 3 marines did as conduct that “does not reflect our values and may endanger Afghanistan peace talks.” The soldiers involved in this incident have since then been punished on an administrative level, according to the U.S. Military.

Moving forward, I continued on as a regular listener of “The Dana Show.” After listening to various segments of her show from then on, it became likened to walking through a political field of landmines. Her rhetoric became more and more intolerable. Some of her broadcasts were certainly better than others, but for the most part, she began to echo the talking points of the mainstream right-wing republican talking points. She would heavily bash the “Occupy movement,” which further fed into a self-fulfilling prophecy of the occupy crowd being an extension of the democratic party. (Which “Occupy” did eventually appears to have become.) At this point, I began to presume that based on the fact that Loesch was still considered a relatively new comer in the realm of the talk radio, she was making one desperate attempt after another to fit in with the “Big Boys Club.” You know the types I’m referring to, right? Personalities I don’t tune into. A few examples of nonsensical pundits would be Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, and countless others. I’m sure I’ll spotlight these guys some other day. These guys are already established talking heads for the whole “Left vs. Right” political rhetoric machine. I’m assuming that in order to stand out in general media, while attempting to fit into a specified circle of the right-wing, Dana often feels compelled to throw logic to the wind and just blather outrageous rants, most of which lack substance. Proof of Loesch seeking validation was later shown when she linked to an article via Twitter of Rush Limbaugh giving her praise on an entirely different issue which of course, affected him directly. Gee, I was under the impression Dana was the anti-establishment, “conservative alternative” radio show host. Limbaugh relentlessly promotes the establishment, and has done so for the last couple decades or so.

Now we finally cross over into the point of no return. Loesch eventually figured another great thing to do to further impress the status quo is to ridicule and mock Ron Paul supporters. Scolding them on the radio for not blindly voting for whoever the nominee would eventually become, if not the congressman from Texas. Burrowing further into Loesch’s point of no return was when she began to attack the opposition by way of distortion and a grandiose level of outright lies, in general. In my book, if you’re going to defeat anyone or anything, you have to do so based on integrity through facts & logic, and not otherwise. A victory gained through forgery isn’t a victory at all. Through all this, before I was blocked on twitter for calling her out on laughing at Steven Crowder ripping on Megan McCain in a very classless way, I had to sit there and watch her tweet every Sunday scribing…”I’m starting my week off from the pew today.” Oh give me a break pulling the “Christian conservative card. One day a week, she’s holier than thou, while during the rest of the week, she plays the role of a classic hypocrite. Individuals that follow her lead is what ultimately makes followers of any faith look bad.

Comments from the article. Have you noticed how neoconservatives(much like progressives)love to declare a war on everything?

(Click photo to enlarge image.)The tweet highlighted in red tipped Dana over the edge, prompting her to block me.

You shout down and label any man who beats you in a debate/argument as a misogynist, yet enjoy ripping on women like Megan McCain through your twitter surrogates. (I don’t agree w/McCain’s ideology, but I remain civil & respectful as I’m proving a point.) By the way, were you aware of the fact that hypocrisy is something heavily criticised by God in the Holy Bible? Go figure.

Now without further ado, you’re getting ready to read verbatim the Facebook post I originally intended to use as a rebuttal to Loesch. Due to my own time constraints, time passed me by rather swiftly, making my original response in April lengthier in detail than I intended. I copied my text verbatim, so it remains in the form of a letter, or post to her. I’m glad time did flee from me, because since then, as you can see, I’ve started a nice sub series “Defeating Neoconservatism” right here on “The Valente Journal.” In the long run, I believe this will be more effective towards removing the status quo and it’s minions from power. Buckle your seatbelts and enjoy the “Back Loesch” as I break down her lies and her logically weak arguments point by point.

“Good morning Dana,
(I would have written this up sooner, but I’m often times too busy. Please excuse what has become a delayed response.)

Dana’s original Facebook post.

Just for the record, I’m a genuinely nice guy and offer respect to the average person I encounter. Knowing the country is currently all screwed up with politicians gone wild, and pundits perpetuating political games, I picked up on the rage in your comment. At that point, I felt compelled to inject some reality into your thread. Given the current state of the union, I can admit I was already in a bit of a bad mood which is why when some of your other listeners and/or subscribers challenged me, I participated in the online squabble, albeit briefly. Hopefully, you noticed that before your recent post, I initiated a mending of fences and have since, moved on from the entanglement. I don’t typically get involved in debate over non issues. I’m usually good with staying on task with issues at hand. Clearly, to quote you, I’m choosing the ‘former’. I look forward to future political discourse with you all. We disagree on several key issues, but as I’ve stated before, I like and respect all of you. 😉

That not withstanding, in your post, you did write a few things that raised my eyebrow. I’ll tackle these points of interest item by item.#1. When you say ‘Douche’ up the thread- By that remark, if you meant that I drafted relevant observations

(Click to enlarge photo)My initial response to Dana after she went on a tirade about people mentioning Ron Paul “too often.” After posting this, many of Dana’s followers attacked me in her absence. She finally chimed in herself, and claims I “douched up her thread.” I called her out as a supporter of neo-conservative politicians.

which extend beyond the typical political game; [left vs. right] shining a light on pop-cultural establishment conservatism, then you would be correct. I’ve witnessed many get behind a microphone and blog with passion for a cause in the beginning. However, once that money starts trickling in, one gradually loses focus on their original goal, resulting in the loss of their message. The grassroots slowly fade into oblivion, and next thing you know, they’re pandering to the hand-picked establishment candidates for interviews; in most cases they begin supporting them. The central focus degenerates; hence the voice of change then serves to entertain supporters while agitating opposition. This type of daily exercise stands to solve nothing. Your original post tells this story. You’ve noticed the types of ‘crap for candidates’ the Tea Party has been endorsing from a local to national scale. That movement has been successfully strong armed by establishment republicans.

#2. “Go outside sometime…Geebus man, it’s FACEBOOK.” LOL! Why would a truly grassroots oriented individual, who’s still in touch with their roots, ever put down any module of media based on the capacity of said media tool. So long as that media format is able to communicate the message of the messenger and can reach at least one person, enabling the chance to make a difference, then the media device has purpose and should not be discounted. Do you not remember how effective the media tool ‘Twitter’ was when Libya had its recent revolution? One only needs remember that David [grassroots] will always triumph over the physically intimidating Goliath[establishment]. Why? Typically, Goliath is typically over-confident, blinded with pride, and is consumed with the desire for materialized fortune; always underestimating his opposition, David. David derives his power through his faith coupled by his passion. Goliath will win some battles while David always wins the war.

Aside from all that, we don’t know each other on a personal level, so why assume you know how often I do or don’t ‘go out’? LOL! This struck me as very odd, but meh…its all good. Overall, maybe I could be wrong on my point too. Maybe you saying “it’s Facebook” wasn’t you discounting Facebook as a serious enough media outlet to converse. Maybe this was you admitting that your page was an extension of your entertainment show, and that no one should take anything you say or do within that realm, seriously. Hmm…interesting.

(Click to Enlarge photo)Dana claims to be low key & cool with comments of those she disagrees with, but her posts tell a different story once you spotlight her adopted, empty right-wing neo-conservative rhetoric. Hypocritically, her comments are sometimes laced with profane language, and “ad-hominem.” A word she loves to use when she can’t win an a debate.Note: I’m not one of the posters who ever mentioned Ron Paul by name. I believe without a doubt she attacked me because I accurately called her out as being a supporter of neo-conservative candidates, essentially exposing her as a neocon in the process.

#3. “No one wants to come here and read a bunch of bulls**t in a thread after every comment.” I agree which is why my original post was drafted from a perspective of observation, backed by a logical assessment. In case you didn’t notice, no one has been able to dismantle my analysis. You made an attempt, mostly using deflection, but were unsuccessful. Why? This is because what I wrote streamlined straight through the contrived illusion, that is the meaningless ‘2 party nonsense’, and attacked the very essence of the artificially engineered confusion. It was a straight forward critique based, once again, from a logical sense of observation which merits credibility. Yes, appearing on CNN as a paid contributor regularly does take away from your cause, to some degree. I do like CNN, but I take what they report with a grain of salt as I do with any news media organization. Getting back to my point, in your position, you have become a form of controlled opposition. Think about it. When was the last time you wrote an editorial piece in regard to how CNN continues to ride the presidents coat tails, or how they’ve covered and portrayed the GOP candidates? It’s as though you’ve been placed into the “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” state of mind. Or is it that maybe you just don’t feel like criticizing them anymore? Having surrogates ‘call them out’ for you doesn’t count. You’ve accepted some establishment media payroll, and naturally, most likely due to contract clauses, this limits your 1st amendment speech a bit; but only because you allow it to. On a personal note about myself, I’ve never feared losing my employment status from a company for being outspoken. If an organization does something critically wrong or engages in a policy/activity that strongly conflicts with my own personal beliefs, I am and have always stood my ground on my principles. No hesitation. My soul is invaluable and I’d never sell it; especially for needs of the flesh: material trinkets, fame, or etc. The main reason I began writing a blog 2 years ago was to bring attention back to real issues, not nonsensical crap that will get me more traffic. For money, I work full-time. When I make time for it, I write and even chat about possible solutions to the problems that have plagued our great nation for far too long. My point here is that the sophomoric political games of liberals vs. conservatives is a sever waste of time that serves no purpose but to agitate opposition while generating revenue by manipulation for the instigators of the nonsense. The day I ever start taking people like ‘Rush Limbaugh’ or ‘Ed Schultz’ serious, shows that promote this propaganda and I don’t listen to anyway, will be the day I campaign for Barack Obama. LOL! Dana, I’m writing for a purpose. Trust me on this. Your show actually does contain some factual substance with limited hyperbole, but is still fairly new. This gives me hope that you aren’t too far removed from your grassroots origins.

#4. “…maybe tell the whole story? I very publicly voted for Romney because at the end the only choices were Romney or McCain, and I disliked McCain more. I still do. So that’s how that works.” No! That’s not how it’s done. By that logic, your method of voting is one of the ‘mob’ mentality. The with us or against us mantra crafts a poor choice of candidates in almost any election I can recall.

Source:(Click photo to navigate to direct Missouri.gov site)This further exposes Dana Loesch as a supporter of the establishment. She consciously chose to vote for neoconservative, Mitt Romney, over both Huckabee and Paul. One can clearly see, Romney was not the only GOP candidate on the ballot in Missouri, as Dana Loesch claims him to have been. DISTORTION

You wanted me to tell the whole story? Okay, you got it. You are correct that Romney and McCain were the only remaining choices; only if you go by the mainstream media’s take on the ’08’ Missouri GOP primary. When you voted that year, do you remember who finished in 2nd place? It sure as heck wasn’t McCain or Romney.The truth, in reality, you had ‘4’ remaining choices. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. So you’d have us believe Romney is far more conservative than Huckabee, who finished 2nd place in the Missouri primary, or Paul? That’s a very interesting anecdote. LOL! Heck, if you wanted to make a conservative vote, Thompson was on the ballot too.(Of course this would have been a protest vote since he formally dropped out in January ’08’)
Be that as it may, Paul and Huckabee were on the ballot and active candidates. I remember it almost like it was yesterday that the media kept asking Huckabee when he’d drop out. The GOP establishment continuously, through many of the same media outlets, kept pressuring him to drop out. As for Paul, the GOP establishment never wanted him to run to begin with. Don’t get me wrong. I’m far from being a Huckabee supporter, but since when does a ‘grassroots conservative’ take their marching orders from the MSM and GOP est. with regard on whom to vote for? Yes, marching orders because I remember back then, the GOP began to rally behind McCain, but much like now, were still on the fence about Romney. Nonetheless, these were the 2 candidates being pushed on the republican/conservative voter base. A true grassroots conservative wouldn’t allow establishment to give them their choices in a free republic. A grassroots oriented conservative votes their conscience and on principle. If your conservative principles are more reflective in Romney, then hey, it’s your free right to support whomever you wish. The issue in play is that we all know Romney is NOT conservative, let alone “SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE.” Why would you be disingenuous, pretending you were forced to choose between two candidates in the ’08’ GOP Missouri primary? You also aren’t being forthright as far as why you really supported Romney over more conservative options either. You dub yourself ‘The Conservative Alternative’ yet you support a fake conservative, who is indeed a mainstream republican pushed then and especially now by the establishment? There is definitely a conflict of interest between how you identify yourself and your actual actions.

#5. By mid to late march of 2008, Huckabee finally succumbed to political pressure and ended his candidacy, buying into the idea it would be good for the ‘party’ and the country. Paul formally ended his bid in June 2008. By the time the general election took place, conservatives/republicans, by and large, not all of them, cast a vote for John McCain. The grassroots conservatives, such as yourself, though, did not. They took a stand against the establishment and cast a vote for a grassroots pushed and elevated candidate they got on the ballot, voted for him/her. Oh. My bad. That was fiction. You actually did the “hold your nose thing” and voted for McCain; the choice pushed on and given to you by the media and GOP establishment. You took no stand against the garbage choices we had to choose from.

#6. Dana, you yourself have stated several times…”Don’t measure your candidates against Obama. Measure them up against the constitution.” Sounds like a good sound bite. It’s too bad you don’t practice what you preach. That being said, ‘Romney-care’ alone would not qualify Mitt, yet you chose him over 2 others at the time who were far more conservative than he? Huh? So according to your true philosophy, all Obama has to do to gain your vote is throw ‘Republican’ in front of his name instead of Democrat, be the last candidate standing, and he wins your vote, albeit not whole heartedly, I imagine. What a waste of a vote, but again, we have the right to vote for whomever we wish to. It’s just too bad the media chooses the candidates each cycle, indirectly, which means we don’t truly get to choose anything. Choosing between the lesser of 2 corrupt powers, with regard to anything, will have an end result of reaping corruption when the choice is eventually made. Example: if I choose cookies over cake, I’m still choosing processed food packed with sugar(I love peanut butter cookies) giving me the same potential health risks.

#7. I know you and many of your followers have fun labeling people “Paulbots,” “Romneybots,” “Newtbots,” and etc. for being fanatics. On this topic, I can agree there are definitely fanatics of the candidates that have written many worship oriented, unrealistic things, about whom they may support. However, in this respect, I’ll give you a mirror. Turn on the lights, look into that mirror, and realize that possibly unbeknownst to you, you’ve become a “Republican fanatic”[conservabot]. Your claim is that the “liberals fall in love with the candidates. Conservatives fall in line.” (This coming from someone consistently gushing over neoconservatives like Rep. Allen West & Paul Ryan.) Your hypocrisy at this point seemingly has no end, as you post photos of you and the candidates out and about outside of the radio studios and conventions. You have no ground to call out the left on this, as you carry on just as they do. Fall in line with what? The republican party itself? I understand many people tend to vote for candidates solely based on common political party affiliations. Status quo liberals and conservatives share the same inherent character flaw. This is a symptom of human nature that has little, if anything, to do with political ideology. It’s safe to say that whether one group falls in line or the other in love, the common bond here is that both ideological groups have, in reality, fallen.

When men and women join the military, they swear an oath for the post they are taking. They are not swearing an allegiance to any political parties or corporations. Instead, they swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all threats, foreign & domestic. The constitution, namely the Bill of Rights, serves the purpose of protecting and preserving the unalienable rights of each individual U.S. Citizen, endowed unto us by our creator at birth. These are natural rights that cannot be taken away from us, period. Political parties serve the purpose of self promotion, in an effort to amass power. This is why you don’t see many public servants serving their constituents. Most politicians merely start off or become self-serving and succumb to the human nature of greed and narcissism. Their bloated salaries and “I’m above the law” mentality is proof positive of this. The insider trading expose was very telling in this regard.

Dana, I’ve written this response with purpose. What you take from it, if anything, is that I’m sounding the liberty bell as a means of alarm. Most of these politicians have gone crazed with power and hunger for more wealth by illegitimate means. I view you as one of the most, if not the most prominent independent voice on the airwaves that supports the constitution. If you’re the true patriot you claim to be, you should be happy that Romney has not yet appeared on your talk show. He isn’t worthy. Santorum has even stated that Romney will say and do anything for a vote. He’s not a true conservative. He’s just power-hungry, likely wanting his name to go down in history as the ’45th POTUS’. Political parties, and media entertainment shows, push forth self-aggrandizing agendas that are there to serve themselves. If you are a “conservative alternative” in reality and are wanting to get the country back in shape, I can’t understand why you, or anyone else from your circles, would support candidates that support junk that violates the constitution each election cycle. By this conjecture, it tells me you’ve moved away from the liberty grassroots movement and have become simply known as, CNN contributor[entertainer], Dana Loesch. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. There’s nothing wrong with being an entertainer, but pretending you’re something you’re not is very misleading to your ‘cult’ followers. (I noticed a few of them expressed anger at the fact that Bill Maher will be on your show soon) They believed you were really still fighting for conservative American voices to be heard that adheres to the law of the land. They didn’t realize you made the transition from being a grassroots St. Louis Tea-Party mom to becoming a paid media pundit.

The “you’re either with us or against us” comment you made prompts me to ask you “with whom are you suggesting we side with?”
Establishment democrats and republicans have both voted for and written unconstitutional legislation over time. How can we take back our country if we continue supporting the establishment? One solution is found in the “Declaration of Independence.”

That concludes my original rebuttal. I originally wrote this back in April 2012. I’m sure since then, she’s said and done far more irrational things. I haven’t listened to her show for quite sometime, for it only serves as another mouth piece for the political establishment. Romney has since then, become the GOP nominee, and I’m sure the Breitbart gang is perfectly okay with that.

Commonly, many Americans side with republicans, democrats, libertarians, and etc. I simply side with the U.S. Constitution, which always preserves my God-given rights and is supportive of my individual freedom.

I’ll close this edition of “Defeating Neoconservatism” by addressing Dana directly once more.

“Well Dana, sometimes, I pity the majority of your current audience because they take everything talking heads like you speak for gospel, never once questioning the integrity or credibility of your statements & writings, which is sad for America. Judging from my perspective, you lost whatever credibility you had a long time ago, perhaps never to be found again. I guess no one ever told them that just because someone is on Television, Radio, or writes things online, does not make one impervious to being completely wrong. In closing Dana, I’ll leave you to continue doing what you do best which falls under the realms of:

On that note, have fun with all the great ‘grass roots’ neo-conservative fun! In the meantime, I have more pressing matters to tend to such as helping to restore this nations republic while defending & upholding our U.S. Constitution, with integrity.